My point is that even if you can quote someone out of context saying "I voted for him because he's black," it doesn't follow that the only reason which influenced his decision was the politician's skin color. People aren't known for articulating everything which influences their decision-making.

If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).

BigBallinStalin wrote:If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).

95-97% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Obama (2008 - 13% turnout increase)86-90% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Kerry (2004)

In an interview with Ebony, Jackson said, "I voted for Barack because he's black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people, because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."

\

- Many blacks were motivated to vote based on race for Obama.- Many blacks who would not have shown up to vote otherwise, did show up and vote for Obama.

Clearly the best combination of a candidate for a black person is Democrat and black. I'm not sure why you would make the assertion if race was not a factor then they would be screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain (in a primary in which most blacks don't participate). That's silly. Especially since they already have their preferred combination.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).

95-97% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Obama (2008 - 13% turnout increase)86-90% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Kerry (2004)

In an interview with Ebony, Jackson said, "I voted for Barack because he's black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people, because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."

\

- Many blacks were motivated to vote based on race for Obama.- Many blacks who would not have shown up to vote otherwise, did show up and vote for Obama.

Clearly the best combination of a candidate for a black person is Democrat and black. I'm not sure why you would make the assertion if race was not a factor then they would be screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain (in a primary in which most blacks don't participate). That's silly. Especially since they already have their preferred combination.

I didn't make that assertion. My position has been that skin color is not the only factor.

I voted for Obama because he was better than McCain.I voted for Obama because I thought he was fairly left-leaning.I voted for Obama because of that shit-eating smirk he does sometimes. I love it. (Bush had a good one too; Clinton's and Bush 1's were lame)I voted for Obama because I was sick of the current conservative trend of being batshit loons.I voted for Obama because he was black, to encourage the perception of racial equality in US politics, and to demonstrate that we actually don't trust old white men over everyone else. We've come a long way.

OH NOES NEOS A RACIST HE VOTED HOOSAIN CAUSHES BLACKSS!!1

Obviously we haven't come that far. Should his race be a consideration? No, but until we have minority presidents, and people like Phatscotty stop freaking out about imaginary "reverse discrimination," we will always be in this situation. At some point race won't be an issue, and I can drop that off my list of considerations. But until then, I'm going to give consideration to blacks, women, etc, until conservatives stop flipping their shit. I know, I'm a dreamer.

Neoteny wrote:Some of my voting considerations in order of importance.

I voted for Obama because he was better than McCain.I voted for Obama because I thought he was fairly left-leaning.I voted for Obama because of that shit-eating smirk he does sometimes. I love it. (Bush had a good one too; Clinton's and Bush 1's were lame)I voted for Obama because I was sick of the current conservative trend of being batshit loons.I voted for Obama because he was black, to encourage the perception of racial equality in US politics, and to demonstrate that we actually don't trust old white men over everyone else. We've come a long way.

OH NOES NEOS A RACIST HE VOTED HOOSAIN CAUSHES BLACKSS!!1

Obviously we haven't come that far. Should his race be a consideration? No, but until we have minority presidents, and people like Phatscotty stop freaking out about imaginary "reverse discrimination," we will always be in this situation. At some point race won't be an issue, and I can drop that off my list of considerations. But until then, I'm going to give consideration to blacks, women, etc, until conservatives stop flipping their shit. I know, I'm a dreamer.

Lootifer wrote:Could it be racist under some circumstances? Yes. If the scouting organisation refused to scout "white" schools because they claim Black people are faster then they are being racist. But they are also acting under false pretences. They are not avoiding predominantly white schools because they believe Black people are faster, they are avoiding them because they believe white people to be slower, which, while it may seem like the same thing, it isn't because one is a positive and one is a negative.

e.g.- I can be consistent and say Black people run fast, and then accept a white person into my sprint team (I never said white people can't be fast too)- I am being inconsistant when I say White people run slow, and then accept a white person into my sprint team

Subtle but important difference. And any percieved racism always has its roots in the negative, not the positive.

the problem with this is that the positive DIRECTLY IMPLIES the negative.

take sexism, for example. if i was looking to hire someone in a technical field, and i give more consideration to men's applications (because i believe that men are better at technical things than women are), then i'm focusing on the positive but still being sexist. it is the exact same as giving less consideration to women's applications because i believe that women are less technical than men are (which is a negative).

the only difference from your example is that not every human is white or black. but the number of groups involved should have no influence on whether something is considered discrimination or not.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

john9blue wrote:the problem with this is that the positive DIRECTLY IMPLIES the negative.

No it doesn't.

It can do, but as I say a few posts earlier than the one I linked, you need more information to come to that conclusion.

This simple example shows what I mean...

There's a common saying in New Zealand sporting circles: "I support two teams: New Zealand, and anyone playing against Australia". The first half in itself does not imply ANY discrimination against Australia, thus by itself is non-discriminatory, however the second part is clarification that disrimination was implied. If you removed the section after the comma then there is no dicrimination.

If you are to say supporting something based on any arbartairy reason is discriminatory is basically saying the entire world is rife with discrimination.

I am not saying supporting someone based on skin colour is rational, it's dumb as f*ck, I am just saying it's not (neccessarily - it could well be, but further clarification is required) racist.

edit: sexism is not a good example because 99.99% of the cases where something similar to this threads' question occurs is not "A Man would be good at xxxx" but "A man woulod be better than a woman at xxxx" which includes the negative, and thus is discriminatory.

note: I mean unfairly discrimination when I use the term in this post; there are types of rational/fair discrimination in society for purely pragmatic reasons (e.g. Men and Woman dont compete in the same competition in the olympics, boxers have weight categories, etc etc).

BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?

PD already answered this for me:

Right__ as long as we're voting on appearance that doesn't include race we're safe.

It can do, but as I say a few posts earlier than the one I linked, you need more information to come to that conclusion.

This simple example shows what I mean...

There's a common saying in New Zealand sporting circles: "I support two teams: New Zealand, and anyone playing against Australia". The first half in itself does not imply ANY discrimination against Australia, thus by itself is non-discriminatory, however the second part is clarification that disrimination was implied. If you removed the section after the comma then there is no dicrimination.

If you are to say supporting something based on any arbartairy reason is discriminatory is basically saying the entire world is rife with discrimination.

I am not saying supporting someone based on skin colour is rational, it's dumb as f*ck, I am just saying it's not (neccessarily - it could well be, but further clarification is required) racist.

edit: sexism is not a good example because 99.99% of the cases where something similar to this threads' question occurs is not "A Man would be good at xxxx" but "A man woulod be better than a woman at xxxx" which includes the negative, and thus is discriminatory.

note: I mean unfairly discrimination when I use the term in this post; there are types of rational/fair discrimination in society for purely pragmatic reasons (e.g. Men and Woman dont compete in the same competition in the olympics, boxers have weight categories, etc etc).

the first half of that phrase is discrimination against all teams not from new zealand.

and the entire world IS rife with discrimination... lol

i understand your way of thinking but i don't really agree with it. according to your model, white supremacists and the black panthers are not racist groups.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?

PD already answered this for me:

Right__ as long as we're voting on appearance that doesn't include race we're safe.

john9blue wrote:i understand your way of thinking but i don't really agree with it. according to your model, white supremacists and the black panthers are not racist groups.

Maybe, but can we honestly say with a straight face white supremacists and the black panthers are only positive thinking groups? If they were I wouldnt hesitate to call them non-racist (while at the same time calling them dumb as f*ck). However in reality we DO know they have very strong negative dialog and beliefs.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

I voted for Obama for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head (probably not thinking of some, but in a general order of importance):I expected him to kill the Patriot Act, shut down Guantanamo and get us the hell out of Iraq.I disliked McCain quite strongly based on his voting as regards military disabled benefits, while being a disabled veteran himself.Compounding my dislike for McCain was...if he dies, we get WHO?I expected Obama to be pretty liberal socially.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

These are stereotypes, and not facts (as you've portrayed by your own words), because...

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a more serious note, it's best not to place such truth in aggregates of groups. "Blacks" don't all vote democrat. The assertion that "blacks as a group vote democrat" is erroneous because it presumes that all blacks do such a thing. Individuals have different preferences, and act differently from each other--even though as you posit: "as a group" they may do "action X." Groups and races don't make decisions; only individuals do. I know, my good man, that I am nitpicking, but it's important to not homogenize entire groups of people.